Andrew Kelly writes.... > > > > Tony Nugent wrote: > > > I would complain. It is one thing to scan for and block/drop > > viruses and spam (and "bad" attachments etc), but filtering content > > with a "profanity" block in otherwise legitimate emails is > > tantamount to unilateral censorship. What right have they to do > > that? > > Profanity blocking can be a very legitimate tool in the right > circumstances. It's a good way to filter a great deal of > pornographic spam if you have no other blockage in place. This assumes you don't want porn..................? > In a standard office environment profanity can be an indicator > of non-work related traffic (or at least inappropriate > correspondance). There are any number of reasons to > filter profanity; some legitimate, some less so. Well, if you are doing it for legal reasons, maybe. But just looking for words that shouldn't be used in formal letters (idiot, jerk, brainless, butt, joint, etc), that's just a manager who is a "brainless jerk", or a sysop with WAY too much time on their hands. I've got a friend that works for a company like that. It's AMAZING what gets kicked out. Suggested he "come down to the beach and lets drink some beers." "Beach" and "beer" got rejected. > I pesonally don't give a hoot if people want to filter > their mail or not. > But it bloody well should be a proper filter, shouldn't it? Well.......if __I__ want to block what comes __IN__ to my mail spool, that's one thing. If my ISP wants to determine what comes __IN__ or goes __OUT__, then that's clearly censorship, and I'd DEFINITELY get another ISP. > > I've had mail bounce off a profanity block because of > the word tool. I couldn't believe it. > > There are wankers and there are wankers. > > Andy > -- Jay Crews jpc@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
